口译思维过程中的意义协商概念整合研究
|
摘要
本论文主要从概念整合认知视角研究口译思维过程的意义协商原则及其认知运作机制。
在此项研究中,口译思维过程指口译发生时的后台认知,聚焦正式会议交替传译(以下统称口译)所涉及的译员大脑思维的心智运作;意义协商亦称概念化协同运作,指口译心智运作的特殊意义构建,表征为涉及一系列复杂输入维度的概念整合思维。研究试图说明,通过意义协商机制运作,译员将动态感知的语言信息和交际信息与长时记忆中的经验信息不断进行在线整合,获得一连串思维顿悟。
截至目前,大多数针对口译思维过程的研究(如信息加工、脑神经、认知心理等)都是围绕口译程序的串行加工进行反复论证,而对于语言信息处理、记忆分析以及意图实现之间的概念接口与概念化方式尚缺乏系统描写,口译思维过程所蕴含的认知本质扑朔迷离。本研究以系统科学的自组织运动机理为整体观照,以Fauconnier&Turner(Fauconnier 1997;Fauconnier &Turner 1996,2002)提出的概念整合理论为视点,结合认知语言学、心理语言学与认知科学中描述言语交际的相关原理,采用理论模式探讨与实据论证相结合的办法,考察口译思维过程中不易察觉的概念化表征,并在此基础上力图构建围绕意义协商机制运作的口译思维过程认知模式。
基本理论假设是,口译思维过程通过体现人类高度复杂经验认知的概念化系统得到表征,其心智运作绝不是简单和笼统的输入——输出机制,而是以动态、开放、立体的思维主体意义协商运作为核心机制的语言和非语言信息意义构建,体现为独特的概念整合思维流程,并通过三阶合成运作得到模式表征。口译思维流程以心智空间为基本认知单位,涉及源语空间、感知空间、关联空间、语境空间、理解空间、记忆空间和译语空间的概念合成运作,输入维度涵盖语言、交际和经验三类相互关联的范畴层级,通过空间意义协商,不断进行合成运作,在合成空间出现一系列概念突显。意义协商机制体现为包括从源语表征空间到译语表征空间之间的前知识突显、双重语境连通和主体性对话互动等概念化方式。意义协商贯穿于口译思维理解、口译思维推进和口译思维重构等程序,通过不断出现的新生结构,实现口译认知交际的言效契合。
研究旨在揭示系统与要素以及各范畴层级之间的相互关系,构建具有解释性及可操作性的口译思维过程认知模式,并从概念层面把握口译意义协商认知运作的思维规律。在研究方法上,沿用Setton(1999)所提倡的多元定性研究路线,既包括自下而上的理论探讨,也包括自上而下的实证分析。理论探讨以内省法为主导,借鉴现代语言学、心理语言学、语言哲学、认知科学的研究成果,结合现场会议口译语料进行观察分析,构建体现口译概念整合思维的意义协商模式。为进一步说明模式的有效性,实证分析以定量数据为主、定性分析为辅,采用实验法和调查法进行多方位举证;通过变量赋值与研究对象的范畴分类,科学量化关涉语言与思维操作的相关变量;最后分析各变量在口译概念整合不同阶段的作用、相互关系和不同变化,获得对译员相关概念化能力的综合评价。
主要发现如下:首先,口译思维后台认知并非体现由源语到译入语的简单映射,而是表征为认知主体不断进行概念整合的意义协商,涉及一系列概念化运作,既包括认知过程,也包括认知结果。语言结构的解码与编码的实质在于具有不同思维模式与个性化特征的概念范畴的在线交流与合作,促发来自不同心智空间的参与要素不断进行概念合成运作,以获得认知效用最大化。其次,口译思维过程中,能力取决于大脑对概念框架的组构,综合体现为建立在许多子系统基础上的意义协商运作。因此,口译认知能力不是一个静止的概念,而是涉及一系列概念化子系统内部以及子系统之间互为关联、互为激活的概念整合。第三,意义协商既是统领口译各项概念化运作的认知机制,也是区别系统内部概念化类型的态度尺度。口译概念整合包含无数发展变化和错综复杂的子系统,每一个子系统都是通过上一层级的概念化运作获得概念突显,相关的子系统又通过进一步概念化运作,作为输入成分进入新的合成运作。第四,口译思维过程的意义协商机制活跃于概念整合系统思维网络,体现出不同类型的认知取向,主要归属于简单合成与复杂合成两大类。
该项研究是针对口译心智运作的概念化本质所进行的系统尝试,力求做到理论推陈出新、论证细致严密。如提出前知识突显假说,说明前知识突显是意义协商的概念化表征,存在于口译概念整合的任何阶段,体现出贯穿口译思维过程的前知识结构动态发展观,澄清了口译界广为承认但缺乏明晰的前知识运作本质;提出双重语境连通假说,论证了口译概念化认知中在场与不在场概念的内在关系,揭示了口译语境是一个伴随口译思维进程而变化发展的意义构建概念化实质,为进一步认识言语交际中的语境概念提供了崭新的视角;提出言效契合假说,通过重新解读口译思维过程的主体间性,将不同认知主体的互动融通视作形成空间关联的重要理据,口译言语行为认知通过围绕意义协商空间运作的概念整合思维模式得到合理化解释;最后,在可行性实证研究中,采用变量赋值和范畴分类方法,对一些相对模糊的认知概念进行标准化处理,大大提高了数据验证的效度。通过系统论证,解决了口译思维过程探讨中一些长久以来未曾得到明确解答和深入讨论的关键问题。该研究亦可为进一步揭示口译思维过程中的注意、记忆等微观认知机制提供可资借鉴的视角。
This dissertationreports onaconceptual integrationstudyofmeaningnegotiationanditsoperationmechanisminthecognitiveprocessofinterpreting.
Inthis study,theinterpretingprocess,a backstagecognitionis narrowed downtotheinterpreter’s mental working in consecutive conference interpreting (hereafter calledinterpreting).Meaningnegotiation,also namedas asynergyoperationof conceptualization,is perceived as a special mechanism of meaning construction in interpreting, representedby a series of conceptual integrations with complex inputs. It attempts to reveal thatthrough the coordination of meaning negotiation mechanism, the linguistic andcommunicative information the interpreter captures dynamically and the pre-existingknowledge in her memory will be constantly integrated online, which keeps inspiring theinterpreter’mindinsightfullyandcontinuouslytowork.
Up to now, researches into the interpreting process (as in the field of informationprocessing, cranial nerves, cognitive psychology, etc.) mostly center on a repeateddemonstration of serial interpreting procedures, which leave the world of a systematicsearch within the conceptualization and the conceptual interface between linguisticprocessing, memory analysis and intention realization unsatisfactorily explored andchartered. Therefore, the cognitive nature of the interpreting process remains complicatedandconfusing.Againstthebackdropofself-organizingmechanisminsystemsthinkingandthrough theoretical and empirical demonstrations, this research aims to construct acognitive model of meaning negotiation by probing into the hard-to-be-perceivedconceptual operation mechanism in the interpreting process in light of ConceptualIntegration Theory proposed by Fauconnier & Turner (Fauconnier 1997;Fauconnier&Turner 1996,2002) and in combination with the basic principles of languagecommunicationincognitivelinguistics,psycholinguisticsandcognitivescience.
The present study is hypothesized as follows. Cognitive operation of interpreting istestified by systematic conceptualization representing the complexity of cognition andexperience. The cognitive process of interpreting is more of an open dynamic non-linearmeaning construction involved with both linguistic and extra-linguistic informationrepresented in a three-stage-integration model manipulated by the corresponding meaningnegotiation mechanism in a series of conceptual integrations rather than a simply linearinput-output procedure. With mental space as its basic unit of cognitive operation, theinterpreting process involves the conceptual integration taking place across effector space, perception space, relevance space, contextualization space, understanding space,memorization space and receptor space. During processing, the cognitive inputs, includingsuch dimensions in language, communication and prior knowledge, participate inintegration and result ina series of conceptual salience in the blended space, with meaningnegotiation mechanism working acrossverious mental spaces. Meaning negotiationmechanism is reflected in the conceptualization of prior-knowledge salience betweeneffector space and receptor space, constant interactions between cognitive subjects and soon. All of these interrelated operations interplay with each other and work with thecross-space meaning negotiation, and new structures of conceptualization becomeemergent in different stages of conceptual integration of interpreting. As a result,perlocutionary correspondence is eventually achieved as a result of the co-operative workof conceptualizations in such procedures as understanding, memorizing and reconstructionintheinterpretingprocess.
The study is aimed to reveal the relationship between whole and part, categories andhierarchies in a system of concept by proposing the basic theoretical principles on whichmeaning negotiation mechanism keeps running, and to build an explanative and feasiblecognitive processing model of meaning negotiation featured with conceptual integration.The research, with a multi-aspect, qualitative approach adopted from Setton (1999), hastriedtocombinebottom-uptheoreticalinvestigationwithtop-downempiricalanalysis.Thetheoretical investigation, developed on the basis of recent developments in modernlinguistics, psycholinguistics, linguistic philosophy, cognitive science and systems science,has attemptedtoanalyze thedatacollectedinlive conferenceconsecutiveinterpretationbyusing an introspective method, and to build a conceptual integration model of meaningnegotiation. To further illustrate the validity of the study, empirical analysis, guided by amixture of quantitative data with qualitative analysis, and experimentation with survey, isintended to scientifically quantify relevant variables involved in language and mentaloperation, as well as to analyze the functions, relationship and variance of each variable indifferent stage of conceptual integration. In order to ensure the internal validity of thevariables, such means as variable assignment and sample categorization are employdduring data analysis. These above efforts hopefully will lead to a better and more accurateevaluationofconceptualizationcompetenceoperatedbymeaningnegotiation.
The major findings are stated in the following four aspects. Firstly, the backstagecognition of interpreting, including both cognitive process and cognitive production,involves the operation of meaning negotiation mechanism with conceptual integrations taking place in the interpreter’s mental world, including paralleled conceptualizations,rather than simple mappings between source language and target language. During theprocess of interpreting, the core of decoding and encoding of language structures consistsin the on-line communication and cooperation of conceptual models with differentcognitive models and features, and maximized effect of blendingachieved byparticipatingelements from different mental spaces. Secondly, interpreting competence in cognitivesense is heavily relied on the interpreter’s conceptualized framing ability, generallyreflected by a systematic meaning negotiation operation among subsystems. In this sense,such so-called interpreting competence is not a static notion, but cognitive processing inwhich paralleled conceptualizations are involved and various subsystems are interrelatedand interactivated. Thirdly, meaning negotiation mechanism not only dominates variousconceptualizations in the interpreting process, but also provides a cognitive measurementclassifying those conceptualizations which take place in the mental operation system ofinterpreting. Conceptual integration in the cognitive process of interpreting incorporatesmany ever-changing and intricate subsystems, each of which is made conceptually salientbecause of the conceptualization of the previous subsystems. This conceptualized salientstructure, in the same way, lays a foundation for the next-stage conceptualization ofblending. Last but not least, meaning negotiation mechanism in the interpreting processdisplays two major types of cognitive tendencyin conceptual integration, namely, simplexintegrationandcomplexintegration.
This research, an endeavor made to systematically depict the conceptualization ofmental operation in the interpreting process, is devoted to a theoretical innovation. Theproposal of Prior-knowledge Salience Hypothesis is grounded on the dynamic knowledgestructure in interpreting. It is hypothesized that the prior knowledge can be found in everyphase of the conceptual integration of interpreting, influencing the conceptualization ofmeaning negotiation. The conceptualization of the prior knowledge, which has been takenfor granted but not clarified in the interpretation-research circle, is, again, elaborated.Besides, the interrelationship between presence and absence is, for the first time,expounded in Dual-Context Interconnection Hypothesis, and it is also revealed that thecontext in interpreting is essentially conceptual, constructed in accordance with theconceptual integration of interpreting, both of which provide a new perspective in contextstudy. In addition, the notion of subjectivity is reexamined in PerlocutionaryCorrespondence Hypothesis. Communication between different subjects motivatesinteraction between spaces. The cognitive operation of verbal acts in interpretation is explained by conceptual integration from mental spaces. What’s more, the employment ofvariable assignment and categorization in data processing greatly increases the validity ofthe empirical research by standardizing those unstable variables associated with cognition.Through a comprehensive study, some of the key issues concerning cognitive process ofinterpretingand still remaining in debate, are discussed and unfolded, which is hoped tolenditselftothefutureresearchintosuchmechanismsasattention,memory,andthelikeintheinterpretingprocess.
在此项研究中,口译思维过程指口译发生时的后台认知,聚焦正式会议交替传译(以下统称口译)所涉及的译员大脑思维的心智运作;意义协商亦称概念化协同运作,指口译心智运作的特殊意义构建,表征为涉及一系列复杂输入维度的概念整合思维。研究试图说明,通过意义协商机制运作,译员将动态感知的语言信息和交际信息与长时记忆中的经验信息不断进行在线整合,获得一连串思维顿悟。
截至目前,大多数针对口译思维过程的研究(如信息加工、脑神经、认知心理等)都是围绕口译程序的串行加工进行反复论证,而对于语言信息处理、记忆分析以及意图实现之间的概念接口与概念化方式尚缺乏系统描写,口译思维过程所蕴含的认知本质扑朔迷离。本研究以系统科学的自组织运动机理为整体观照,以Fauconnier&Turner(Fauconnier 1997;Fauconnier &Turner 1996,2002)提出的概念整合理论为视点,结合认知语言学、心理语言学与认知科学中描述言语交际的相关原理,采用理论模式探讨与实据论证相结合的办法,考察口译思维过程中不易察觉的概念化表征,并在此基础上力图构建围绕意义协商机制运作的口译思维过程认知模式。
基本理论假设是,口译思维过程通过体现人类高度复杂经验认知的概念化系统得到表征,其心智运作绝不是简单和笼统的输入——输出机制,而是以动态、开放、立体的思维主体意义协商运作为核心机制的语言和非语言信息意义构建,体现为独特的概念整合思维流程,并通过三阶合成运作得到模式表征。口译思维流程以心智空间为基本认知单位,涉及源语空间、感知空间、关联空间、语境空间、理解空间、记忆空间和译语空间的概念合成运作,输入维度涵盖语言、交际和经验三类相互关联的范畴层级,通过空间意义协商,不断进行合成运作,在合成空间出现一系列概念突显。意义协商机制体现为包括从源语表征空间到译语表征空间之间的前知识突显、双重语境连通和主体性对话互动等概念化方式。意义协商贯穿于口译思维理解、口译思维推进和口译思维重构等程序,通过不断出现的新生结构,实现口译认知交际的言效契合。
研究旨在揭示系统与要素以及各范畴层级之间的相互关系,构建具有解释性及可操作性的口译思维过程认知模式,并从概念层面把握口译意义协商认知运作的思维规律。在研究方法上,沿用Setton(1999)所提倡的多元定性研究路线,既包括自下而上的理论探讨,也包括自上而下的实证分析。理论探讨以内省法为主导,借鉴现代语言学、心理语言学、语言哲学、认知科学的研究成果,结合现场会议口译语料进行观察分析,构建体现口译概念整合思维的意义协商模式。为进一步说明模式的有效性,实证分析以定量数据为主、定性分析为辅,采用实验法和调查法进行多方位举证;通过变量赋值与研究对象的范畴分类,科学量化关涉语言与思维操作的相关变量;最后分析各变量在口译概念整合不同阶段的作用、相互关系和不同变化,获得对译员相关概念化能力的综合评价。
主要发现如下:首先,口译思维后台认知并非体现由源语到译入语的简单映射,而是表征为认知主体不断进行概念整合的意义协商,涉及一系列概念化运作,既包括认知过程,也包括认知结果。语言结构的解码与编码的实质在于具有不同思维模式与个性化特征的概念范畴的在线交流与合作,促发来自不同心智空间的参与要素不断进行概念合成运作,以获得认知效用最大化。其次,口译思维过程中,能力取决于大脑对概念框架的组构,综合体现为建立在许多子系统基础上的意义协商运作。因此,口译认知能力不是一个静止的概念,而是涉及一系列概念化子系统内部以及子系统之间互为关联、互为激活的概念整合。第三,意义协商既是统领口译各项概念化运作的认知机制,也是区别系统内部概念化类型的态度尺度。口译概念整合包含无数发展变化和错综复杂的子系统,每一个子系统都是通过上一层级的概念化运作获得概念突显,相关的子系统又通过进一步概念化运作,作为输入成分进入新的合成运作。第四,口译思维过程的意义协商机制活跃于概念整合系统思维网络,体现出不同类型的认知取向,主要归属于简单合成与复杂合成两大类。
该项研究是针对口译心智运作的概念化本质所进行的系统尝试,力求做到理论推陈出新、论证细致严密。如提出前知识突显假说,说明前知识突显是意义协商的概念化表征,存在于口译概念整合的任何阶段,体现出贯穿口译思维过程的前知识结构动态发展观,澄清了口译界广为承认但缺乏明晰的前知识运作本质;提出双重语境连通假说,论证了口译概念化认知中在场与不在场概念的内在关系,揭示了口译语境是一个伴随口译思维进程而变化发展的意义构建概念化实质,为进一步认识言语交际中的语境概念提供了崭新的视角;提出言效契合假说,通过重新解读口译思维过程的主体间性,将不同认知主体的互动融通视作形成空间关联的重要理据,口译言语行为认知通过围绕意义协商空间运作的概念整合思维模式得到合理化解释;最后,在可行性实证研究中,采用变量赋值和范畴分类方法,对一些相对模糊的认知概念进行标准化处理,大大提高了数据验证的效度。通过系统论证,解决了口译思维过程探讨中一些长久以来未曾得到明确解答和深入讨论的关键问题。该研究亦可为进一步揭示口译思维过程中的注意、记忆等微观认知机制提供可资借鉴的视角。
This dissertationreports onaconceptual integrationstudyofmeaningnegotiationanditsoperationmechanisminthecognitiveprocessofinterpreting.
Inthis study,theinterpretingprocess,a backstagecognitionis narrowed downtotheinterpreter’s mental working in consecutive conference interpreting (hereafter calledinterpreting).Meaningnegotiation,also namedas asynergyoperationof conceptualization,is perceived as a special mechanism of meaning construction in interpreting, representedby a series of conceptual integrations with complex inputs. It attempts to reveal thatthrough the coordination of meaning negotiation mechanism, the linguistic andcommunicative information the interpreter captures dynamically and the pre-existingknowledge in her memory will be constantly integrated online, which keeps inspiring theinterpreter’mindinsightfullyandcontinuouslytowork.
Up to now, researches into the interpreting process (as in the field of informationprocessing, cranial nerves, cognitive psychology, etc.) mostly center on a repeateddemonstration of serial interpreting procedures, which leave the world of a systematicsearch within the conceptualization and the conceptual interface between linguisticprocessing, memory analysis and intention realization unsatisfactorily explored andchartered. Therefore, the cognitive nature of the interpreting process remains complicatedandconfusing.Againstthebackdropofself-organizingmechanisminsystemsthinkingandthrough theoretical and empirical demonstrations, this research aims to construct acognitive model of meaning negotiation by probing into the hard-to-be-perceivedconceptual operation mechanism in the interpreting process in light of ConceptualIntegration Theory proposed by Fauconnier & Turner (Fauconnier 1997;Fauconnier&Turner 1996,2002) and in combination with the basic principles of languagecommunicationincognitivelinguistics,psycholinguisticsandcognitivescience.
The present study is hypothesized as follows. Cognitive operation of interpreting istestified by systematic conceptualization representing the complexity of cognition andexperience. The cognitive process of interpreting is more of an open dynamic non-linearmeaning construction involved with both linguistic and extra-linguistic informationrepresented in a three-stage-integration model manipulated by the corresponding meaningnegotiation mechanism in a series of conceptual integrations rather than a simply linearinput-output procedure. With mental space as its basic unit of cognitive operation, theinterpreting process involves the conceptual integration taking place across effector space, perception space, relevance space, contextualization space, understanding space,memorization space and receptor space. During processing, the cognitive inputs, includingsuch dimensions in language, communication and prior knowledge, participate inintegration and result ina series of conceptual salience in the blended space, with meaningnegotiation mechanism working acrossverious mental spaces. Meaning negotiationmechanism is reflected in the conceptualization of prior-knowledge salience betweeneffector space and receptor space, constant interactions between cognitive subjects and soon. All of these interrelated operations interplay with each other and work with thecross-space meaning negotiation, and new structures of conceptualization becomeemergent in different stages of conceptual integration of interpreting. As a result,perlocutionary correspondence is eventually achieved as a result of the co-operative workof conceptualizations in such procedures as understanding, memorizing and reconstructionintheinterpretingprocess.
The study is aimed to reveal the relationship between whole and part, categories andhierarchies in a system of concept by proposing the basic theoretical principles on whichmeaning negotiation mechanism keeps running, and to build an explanative and feasiblecognitive processing model of meaning negotiation featured with conceptual integration.The research, with a multi-aspect, qualitative approach adopted from Setton (1999), hastriedtocombinebottom-uptheoreticalinvestigationwithtop-downempiricalanalysis.Thetheoretical investigation, developed on the basis of recent developments in modernlinguistics, psycholinguistics, linguistic philosophy, cognitive science and systems science,has attemptedtoanalyze thedatacollectedinlive conferenceconsecutiveinterpretationbyusing an introspective method, and to build a conceptual integration model of meaningnegotiation. To further illustrate the validity of the study, empirical analysis, guided by amixture of quantitative data with qualitative analysis, and experimentation with survey, isintended to scientifically quantify relevant variables involved in language and mentaloperation, as well as to analyze the functions, relationship and variance of each variable indifferent stage of conceptual integration. In order to ensure the internal validity of thevariables, such means as variable assignment and sample categorization are employdduring data analysis. These above efforts hopefully will lead to a better and more accurateevaluationofconceptualizationcompetenceoperatedbymeaningnegotiation.
The major findings are stated in the following four aspects. Firstly, the backstagecognition of interpreting, including both cognitive process and cognitive production,involves the operation of meaning negotiation mechanism with conceptual integrations taking place in the interpreter’s mental world, including paralleled conceptualizations,rather than simple mappings between source language and target language. During theprocess of interpreting, the core of decoding and encoding of language structures consistsin the on-line communication and cooperation of conceptual models with differentcognitive models and features, and maximized effect of blendingachieved byparticipatingelements from different mental spaces. Secondly, interpreting competence in cognitivesense is heavily relied on the interpreter’s conceptualized framing ability, generallyreflected by a systematic meaning negotiation operation among subsystems. In this sense,such so-called interpreting competence is not a static notion, but cognitive processing inwhich paralleled conceptualizations are involved and various subsystems are interrelatedand interactivated. Thirdly, meaning negotiation mechanism not only dominates variousconceptualizations in the interpreting process, but also provides a cognitive measurementclassifying those conceptualizations which take place in the mental operation system ofinterpreting. Conceptual integration in the cognitive process of interpreting incorporatesmany ever-changing and intricate subsystems, each of which is made conceptually salientbecause of the conceptualization of the previous subsystems. This conceptualized salientstructure, in the same way, lays a foundation for the next-stage conceptualization ofblending. Last but not least, meaning negotiation mechanism in the interpreting processdisplays two major types of cognitive tendencyin conceptual integration, namely, simplexintegrationandcomplexintegration.
This research, an endeavor made to systematically depict the conceptualization ofmental operation in the interpreting process, is devoted to a theoretical innovation. Theproposal of Prior-knowledge Salience Hypothesis is grounded on the dynamic knowledgestructure in interpreting. It is hypothesized that the prior knowledge can be found in everyphase of the conceptual integration of interpreting, influencing the conceptualization ofmeaning negotiation. The conceptualization of the prior knowledge, which has been takenfor granted but not clarified in the interpretation-research circle, is, again, elaborated.Besides, the interrelationship between presence and absence is, for the first time,expounded in Dual-Context Interconnection Hypothesis, and it is also revealed that thecontext in interpreting is essentially conceptual, constructed in accordance with theconceptual integration of interpreting, both of which provide a new perspective in contextstudy. In addition, the notion of subjectivity is reexamined in PerlocutionaryCorrespondence Hypothesis. Communication between different subjects motivatesinteraction between spaces. The cognitive operation of verbal acts in interpretation is explained by conceptual integration from mental spaces. What’s more, the employment ofvariable assignment and categorization in data processing greatly increases the validity ofthe empirical research by standardizing those unstable variables associated with cognition.Through a comprehensive study, some of the key issues concerning cognitive process ofinterpretingand still remaining in debate, are discussed and unfolded, which is hoped tolenditselftothefutureresearchintosuchmechanismsasattention,memory,andthelikeintheinterpretingprocess.
引文
7本章对于语义三角模型的介绍主要参照Seleskovitch(1978/1998)、Lederer(1978/2002)和Seleskovitch&Lederer(1989/1995)等文献。
9本章对于认知负荷模型的介绍主要参见Gile(1995)和Gile1997/2002。
10本章关于同声传译认知语用口译模型的介绍主要出自Setton(1999)的专著Simultaneous Interpretation:ACognitive–pragmatic Approach.
17刘宓庆先生在其专著《口笔译理论研究》(2006)中反复强调了口译的这一基本特征,并从语言游戏的视角对口译活动所涉及的语境因素进行了哲学阐释。
18参照PaulThagard在An Introduction to Cognitive Science(《认知科学导论》)中关于问题求解程序的阐述。
21 Dirven把认知语言学言研究划分为(1)以格式塔心理学为基础的研究方向,主要研究格式塔的基本概念和理论在语法中的应用和描写。(2)以现象学为基础的研究方向,主要研究体验性、概念隐喻和转喻、原型理论等。(3)认知语篇的研究方向,主要有心智空间和概念整合理论。(4)认知社会语言学方向,主要研究词汇语义的变异和文化模式等。(5)比喻语言加工的心理语言学和语言习得研究方向。引自张辉2007。
26为解释意义构建模型如何得以压制,以实现最大解释效度,Fauconnier&Turner(1998a)提出6条优化原则(optimalityprinciples),Fauconnier&Turner(2002)将其称为支配原则(governingprinciples)。Turner(2007)在此基础上提出了9条支配原则。汪少华(2002)、苏晓军、张爱玲(2002)、张辉(2003:161-162)、余渭深(2004:555)、王勤玲(2005)和王文斌(2007:110-112)曾对概念整合的优化原则做过介绍。
29摘自沈家煊教授于2005年4月为上海外语教育出版社出版的认知语言学丛书所作总序。
38有关此例分析及其详细情况参照本论文作者发表在《中国科技翻译》2010年4期的文章“谈古训汉英口译的言效契合原则”。
39引自上海外语教育出版社出版的《中国学生英语语调模式研究》(2008:35),作者是陈桦。
40即达到Shlesinger(1998:3)和Gile(1994所提出的口译现场生态效度要求(requirementsofecologicalvalidity)。参见戴炜栋、徐海铭(2007)。
41信息和语言的量化标准参照蔡小红在《口译评估》(2007)中制定的相关评估标准,并根据具体情况进行局部修正。
45引自顾凯平等(2008)编著的《系统科学与工程导论》的编者前言。
46据勒代雷(M.Lederer)教授于发表在《中国翻译》(刘和平译,2010年第3期)“翻译研究方法”一文记载,Ladmiral是唯一作为人文学者谈及翻译科学研究的学者。文中引文出自:Ladmiral, Jean-René. Approaches entheories de la traduction [A]. InAwaiss, Henri,Hardane & Jarjour (eds.). Traduction: Appracheset Theories, Beyrouth,Sources[C].pp.337-47.cibles,UniversiteStJoseph,1999.
Anderson, R. B. W. Perspectives on the role of the interpreter [A]. In F. P?chhacker & M.Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. pp.209-217. London and NewYork:Routledge,1976/2002.
Austin,J.L.HowtoDoThingswithWords?[M].Oxford:TheClarendonPress,1962.
Bache, C. Constraining conceptual integration theory: level of blending and disintegration[J].JournalofPragmatics37:1615-1635,2005.
Bartlett,F.Remembering[M].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1932.
Bateson,G.MindandNature:ANecessaryUnity[M].NewYork:BantamDoubleday,1988.
Berk-Seligson. S. The impact of politeness in witness testimony: the influence of the courtinterpreter [A]. In F. P?chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting StudiesReader [C].pp.280-292.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1988/2002.
Bernard, H. R. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and QuantitativeApproaches [M].(2ndedition)ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications,1994.
Bertalanffy,L.V.Thetheoryofopensystemsinphysicsandbiology[A].InF.E.Emery(ed.).SystemsThinking[C].pp.70-85.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1950.
Boyatzis, R. E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and CodeDevelopment [M].(2ndedition)ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications,1998.
Brandt, P. Mental Spaces and Cognitive Semantics: A Critical Comment [J]. Journal ofPragmatics 37:1578-1594,2005a.
Brandt, L. & P. A. Brandt. Making sense of a blend: A cognitive semiotic approach tometaphor [J]. Ruiz de Mendoza (ed.). Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3,Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,2005b.
Chernov, G. V. Message redundancy and message anticipation in simultaneousinterpretation [A]. In S. Lamber & B. Moser-Mercer (eds.). Bridging the Gap:Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation [C].pp.139-153.Amsterdam andPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,1994.
Chernov, G. V. Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneousinterpretation [A]. in F. P?chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting StudiesReader [C].pp.99-109.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1979/2002.
Chomsky,N.SyntacticStructures[M].TheHague:Mouton,1957.
Clark, E. & H. Clark. Psychology and Language [M]. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich,1977.
Coffey, A. & P. Atkinson. Making Sense of Qualitative Data [M]. Thousand Oaks, CA:SagePublications,1996.
Coulson,S.Themenendezbrothersvirus:analogicalmappinginblendedspaces[A].inA.Goldberg(ed.).ConceptualStructure,Discourse,andLanguage[C].pp.67-81.PaloAlto,CA:CSLIPublications,1996.
Coulson, S. Semantic Leaps: Frame Shifting and Conceptual Blending in MeaningConstruction [M].Beijing:BeijingWorldPublishingCorporation,2001.
Coulson,S.&T.Oakley.Blendingandcodedmeaning:literalandfigurativemeaningincognitivesemantics[J].JournalofPragmatics37:1510-1536,2005.
Croft, W. & D. A. Cruise. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2004.
Cronin, M. The empire talks back: orality, heteronomyand the cultural turn in interpretingstudies [A]. In F. P?chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader[C].pp.387-397.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2002.
Davis,S.Perlocutions[A].InJ.R.Searle,F.Keifer&M.Bierwisch(eds.).SpeechActTheory and Pragmatics [C].pp.37-55.Dordrecht:Reidel,1980.
Dijk,T.V.Macrostructure[M].Hillsdale,N.J.:Erlbaum,1980.
Evans,V & M. Green. Cognitive Introduction: an Introduction [M].Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversityPress,2006.
Fabbro, F. & L. Gran. Neurological and neuropsychological aspects of polyglossia andsimultaneous interpretation [A]. In S. Lamber & B.Moser-Mercer (eds.). Bridging theGap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation [C]. pp.273-317.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,1994.
Fauconnier, G. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language[M].Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.(2nded.,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress),1985/1994.
Fauconnier, G. Mappings in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1997.
Fauconnier, G. Mental spaces [A].In D.Geeraerts & H.Cuyckens (eds.). The OxfordHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. pp.355-376. New York: Oxford UniversityPress,2007.
Fauconnier, G. & E. Sweetser. Spaces, Worlds and Grammar [M]. Chicago: University ofChicagoPress,1996.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. Blending as central process of grammar [A]. In A. Goldberg(ed.).Conceptual Structure,DiscourseandLanguage[C].pp.113-129.Stanford: CSLIPublications,1996.
Fauconnier,G.&M.Turner.ConceptualIntegrationNetworks[J].CognitiveScience,1998a,(22/2):133-87.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. Principles of conceptual integration [A]. In Jean-PierreKoenig(ed.). Discourse & Cognition[C].pp.269-283.Stanford: CSLI Publications,1998b.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’sHidden Complexities [M].NewYork:BasicBooks,2002.
Fellus,O.Self-CorrectionsinSimultaneousInterpretationintheLanguagePairHebrewand English[D].BarIlanUniversity,TheDepartmentofTranslationand InterpretingStudies,2005.
Fillmore, C. Frames and the semantics of understanding [J]. Quaderni di Semantica V1-2:222-254,1985.
Gerver, D. Apsychological approach to simultaneous interpretation [J]. Meta: Journal desTraducteurs/Translators’Journal 20/2:119-128, 1975.
Gerver, D. Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: a review and a model [A]. InR.W.Brislin(ed.).Translation:ApplicationsandResearch[C].pp.165-207.NewYork:GardnerPress,1976.
Gile, D. Openingup in interpreting studies [A]. In M.Snell-Horbyet al. (eds.). TranslationStudies [C]. pp.149-158.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,1994.
Gile,D.BasicConceptsandModelsforInterpretersandTranslatorTraining[M].AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,1995.
Gile,D.Selectingatopic forPhDresearchininterpreting[A].inD.Gileet al.(eds.)GettingStarted in Interpreting Research[C].pp.1-22.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,2001.
Gile,D.Conferenceinterpretingas acognitivemanagementproblem[A].InF.P?chhacker& M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. pp.162-177.London andNewYork:Routledge,1997/2002.
Goffman, E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience [M]. London:HarperandRow,1974.
Goldberg, A. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M].Beijing:BeijingUniversityPress,1995/2007.
Hatim, B. & I. Mason. Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguageEducationPress,1990/2001.
Herbert, J. The Interpreter’s Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter [M].Geneva:Georg,1952.
Holmes, J. S. The name and nature of translation studies [A]. In L.Venuti (ed.). TheTranslation Studies Reader [C].pp.172-185.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1988/2000.
Horn, L. Presupposition and implication [A]. In S. Lappin (ed.). The Handbook ofContemporary Semantic Theory [C].Oxford:Blackwell,1996.
Hutchins, E. Material anchors for conceptual blends[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1555-1577,2005.
Ingram,R.M. Simultaneous interpretationofsign languages: semioticand psycholinguisticperspectives[J].Multilingua4(2):91-102,1985.
Isham,W.P.Memoryforsentenceformaftersimultaneousinterpretation:evidencebothforandagainstdéverbalization[A].InS.LamberandB.Moser-Mercer(eds.).Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation [C].pp.191-211.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,1994:.
Jones,R.ConferenceInterpretingExplained[M].Shanghai:ShanghaiForeignLanguageEducationPress,1998/2008.
Kirchhoff, H. Simultaneous interpreting: interdependence of variables in the interpretingprocess, interpreting models and interpreting strategies [A]. In F. P?chhacker & M.Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C].pp.110-119. London and NewYork:Routledge,1976/2002.
Kramer,K.P.MartinBuber’sIandThou:PracticingLivingDialogue[M].Paramus.NJ:PaulistPress,2004.
Kurz, I. Conference interpretation: expectations of different user groups [A]. InF.P(o|¨)chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader[C]. pp.314-324.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1993/2002.
Lakoff, G. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind [M].Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress,1987.
Lakoff, G & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress,1980.
Lakoff,G.&M.Johnson.PhilosophyintheFlesh--TheEmbodiedMindandItsChallenge to WesternThought [M].NewYork:Basics,1999.
Lambert,S.Humaninformationprocessingandcognitiveapproachtothetraining of simultaneous interpreters [A]. In D.L.Hammond (ed.). Languages atCrossroads: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the American TranslationAssociation [C].pp.379–387.Medford,NJ:LearnedInformation,1988.
Langacker,R.W.Concept,ImageandSymbol:TheCognitiveBasisofGrammar[M].(2ndedition)Berlin:MoutondeGruyter,2002.
Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vols I, II[M]. Beijing: BeijingUniversityPress,1987,1991/2004.
Lederer, M. Simultaneous interpretation: units of meaning and other features[A]. In F.P(o|¨)chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C].pp.130-140.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1978/2002.
Leech,G.PrinciplesofPragmatics[M].London:Longman,1983.
Levelt,W.Speaking:fromIntentiontoArticulation[M].Cambridge,Mass:MIT,1989.
Lonsdale, D. Modeling cognition in SI: methodological issues [J]. Interpreting 2 (1/2):91-117,1997.
Martinich,A. P. The Philosophy of Language [C].pp.459-463. London: Oxford UniversityPress,1985/2001.
Mendoza,D.R.AnnualReviewofCognitiveLinguistics[C].pp.256-63.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,Vol.3,2006.
Minsky, M. A. Framework of representing knowledge [A]. In P.H. Winston (ed.). ThePsychology of Computer Vision [C]. pp.211-277. New York: McGraw-Hill CognitiveLinguistics,OxfordUniversityPress,1975/2007.
Moser, B. Simultaneous interpretation: a hypothetical model and its practical application[A]. In D. Gerver and H.W. Sainaiko (eds.). Language Interpreting andCommunication. Proceedings of the NATO Symposium[C].pp.353-368.Venice, NewYorkandLondon:PlenumPress.1978.
Paradis, M. Toward a neurolinguistics theory of simultaneous translation: the framework[J].InternationalJournalofPsycholinguistics(9/3):319-335,1994.P(o|¨)chhacker, F. Working within a theoretical framework [A]. In D. Gile (ed.). GettingStarted in Interpreting Studies [C]. pp.199-220. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins,2001.
P(o|¨)chhacker, F. & M. Shlesinger. The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. London and NewYork:Routledge,2002.
P(o|¨)chhacker,F.IntroducingInterpretingStudies[M].NewYork:Routledge,2004.Renkema, J. Introduction to Discourse Studies [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language TeachingandResearchPress.2004/2009
Robson, C. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner--Researchers [M].OxfordandCambridge:BlackwellPublishersLtd.,1993.
Saeed,J.Semantics[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1997.
Salevsky,H.Thedistinctivenatureofinterpretingstudies[J].Target2:149-167,1993.
Samovar, L. A., R. E. Porter & L.A.Stefani. Communication Between Cultures [M].Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,2000.
Schank, R. C. & R. P. Abelson. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry intoHuman Knowledge Structures [M].Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum,1977.
Schjoldager, A. An exploratory study of translational norms in simultaneous interpreting:methodological reflections [A]. In F. P(o|¨)chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). TheInterpreting Studies Reader [C]. pp. 303-311.London and New York: Routledge,1995/2002.
Seleskovitch, D. Languageand cognition[A]. In D.Gerver&W.Sinaiko(eds.).LanguageInterpretation and Communication, Proceedings of the NATO Symposium [C].pp.336-339.Venice,NewYorkandLondon:PlenumPress,1977/1978.
Seleskovitch,D.InterpretingforInternationalConferences:Problemsoflanguageand Communication [M].S.Dailey&E.N.McMillan(tr.).Washington,D.C:PenandBooth,1978/1998.
Seleskovitch, D. Language and memory: a study of note-taking in consecutiveinterpreting[A]. In F. P(o|¨)chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting StudiesReader[C].pp.121-129.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1975/2002.
Seleskovitch, D. & M. Lederer. A Systematic Approach to Teaching Interpretation [M]. J.Harmer (tr.). Luxembourg: European Communities & Paris: Didier Erudition, TheRegistryofInterpretersfortheDeaf,1989/1995.
Setton, R. Meaning assembly in simultaneous interpretation [A]. In F. P(o|¨)chhacker & M.Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. pp.178-202.London and NewYork:Routledge,1998/2002.
Setton,R. SimultaneousInterpretation:ACognitive–pragmaticApproach [M].AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,1999.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. Representation and relevance [A]. In R. M. Kempson (ed.).Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality [C].pp.133-153.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988.
Sperber, D. &D. Wilson. Relevance: CommunicationandCognition [M].Beijing: ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,1986/2001.
Stenzl, G. Simultaneous Interpretation: Ground Towards a Comprehensive Model [D].BirkbeckCollege,UniversityofLondon,1983.
Taylor, J. R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,2001.
Thagard,P.Mind:IntroductiontoCognitiveScience[M].Cambridge.Mass:MITPress,2005.
Tomasello,M.TheCulturalOriginsofHumanCognition[M].Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1999.
Turner, M. Conceptual integration [A].In D.Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.). The OxfordHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. pp.383-391. New York: Oxford UniversityPress,2007.
Ungerer,F.&H.J.Schmid.AnIntroductiontoCognitiveLinguistics[M].Beijing: ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,2001.
Verhagen, A. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax and Cognition [M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005.
Vermeer,H.J.Skoposandcommissionintranslationalaction[A].InL.Venuti(ed.).The Translation Studies Reader [C]. pp. 221-232.London and New York: Routledge,1989/2000.
Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign LanguageEducationPress,1999/2008.
Wadensjo, C. The double role of a dialogue interpreter [A]. In F. P?chhacker & M.Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. pp.354-371. London and NewYork:Routledge,1993/2002.
Wierzbicka,A.TheSemanticsofGrammar[M].Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,1988.
Wilson, R. & F.C. Keil. The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences [M]. Shanghai:ShanghaiForeignLanguageEducationPress,2000.
Wittgenstein,L.PhilosophicalInvestigations[M].TheEnglishTextoftheThirdEdition,G.E.M.Anscombe(tr.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHallInc.,1958.
艾布拉姆斯.欧美文学术语词典[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1990.
鲍刚.口译程序中的语义问题[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,1998(4):103-110.
鲍刚.口译程序中的“思维理解”[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,1999(1):1-12.
鲍刚.口译理论概述[M].北京:中国对外翻译公司,2005.
鲍晓英.帮助学生实现口译“信”的标准——记忆心理学在口译教学中的应用[J].外语界,2005(3):37-42.
蔡小红.交替传译过程及能力发展——中国法语译员和学生的交替传译活动实证研究[J].现代外语,2001(3):276-284.
蔡小红.口译研究新探——新方法、新观念、新趋势[M].香港:开益出版社,2002.
蔡小红.口译评估[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2007.
陈嘉映.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
谌莉文.口译思维理解中的前知识运作[J].外语电化教学,2010a(4):37-41.
谌莉文.谈古训汉英口译的言效契合原则[J].中国科技翻译,2010b(6):19-22.
谌莉文、梅德明.意义阐释与口译思维运作的主体间性:语言游戏视角[J].外语与外语教学,2010(6):71-74.
谌莉文、王文斌.论口译双重语境的认知构建:在场概念与不在场概念[J].中国翻译,2010(6):24-28.
程琪龙.概念框架和认知[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
戴炜栋、徐海铭.汉英交替传译过程中译员笔记特征实证研究——以职业受训译员和
非职业译员为例[J].外语教学与研究,2007(2):136-143.
冯之林.思维语[J].现代外语,1997(2):8-12.
高彬.猜测与反驳——同声传译认知理论研究[D].上海外国语大学博士论文,2008.
顾凯平等.系统科学与工程导论[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2008.
桂诗春.应用语言学思想:缘起、变化和发展[J].外语教学与研究,2010(3): 163-169.
何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
何自然、冉永平.语用与认知:关联理论研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
黑玉琴.从关联理论看口译过程中的最佳意义选择[J].外语教学,2003(6):93-96.
胡庚申.怎样学习当好译员[M].合肥:中国科技大学出版社,1993.
胡开宝、陶庆.汉英会议口译语料库的创建与应用研究[J].中国翻译,2010(5):49-56.
胡隆.教育技术研究方法导论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
加达默尔.真理与方法[M].洪汉鼎译,上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
杰克逊.系统思考[M].高飞、李萌译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
金立鑫.语言研究方法导论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
科列索夫.语言与心智[M].杨明天译,上海:上海三联书店,2006.
勒代雷.释意学派口笔译理论[M].刘和平译,北京:中国对外翻译公司,2001.
勒代雷.论翻译学研究方法[J].刘和平译,中国翻译,2010(2):11-18.
雷天放、陈菁.口译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006
李锦、廖开洪.浅析语境在口译中的适应性[J].语言与翻译,2002(4):45-47.
李越然.论口译的社会功能——口译理论基础初探[J].中国翻译,1999(3):7-11.
廖开洪.浅析即席口译过程中理解的障碍[J].中国翻译,1997(4):15-18.
刘爱伦等.思维心理学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2002.
刘和平.口译技巧——思维科学与口译推理教学法[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
刘和平.口译理论与教学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
刘件福.从图式理论看背景知识在口译中的作用[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001(6):16-21.
刘宓庆.口笔译理论研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译公司,2006.
刘绍龙.论双语翻译的认知心理研究——对“翻译过程模式”的反思和修正[J].中国翻译,2007(1):11-16.
刘绍龙.口译“元交际”功能的认知心理学研究[J].外语与外语教学,2008(1):44-47.
刘正光.Fauconnier的概念整合理论阐释与质疑[J].外语与外语教学,2002(10):8-12.
陆国强.英汉概念结构对比[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
卢植.认知与语言:认知语言学引论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
麦金.维特根斯坦与哲学研究[M].李国山译,桂林:广西师范大学出版,2007.
梅德明.中级口译教程(第二版)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
梅德明.高级口译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
梅德明.中级口译教程(第三版)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
梅德明、谌莉文.口译活动的语言游戏参与规则[M].外语教学,2011(2):81-85.
莫爱屏.交传与明示:推理交际——口译的理性思考[J].语言与翻译,2003(2):43-47.
诺德.译有所为:功能翻译理论阐释[M].张美芳、王克非主译,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005.
潘文国.危机下的中文[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,2008.
秦晓晴.外语教学中的定量数据分析[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2010.
束定芳.认知语义学[M].上海:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
苏晓军、张爱玲.概念整合理论的认知力[J].外国语,2001(3):31-36.
唐芳.口译实证研究在中国——一项基于口译实验性研究论文的文献计量研究[J].外语界,2010(2):39-45.
王斌.概念整合与翻译[J].中国翻译,2001(3):17-20.
王斌.隐喻系统的整合翻译[J].中国翻译,2002(2):24-28.
王斌.翻译与概念整合[M].上海:东华大学出版社,2004.
汪少华.合成空间理论对隐喻的阐释力[J].外国语,2001(3):37-43.
汪少华.概念合成与隐喻的实时意义构建[J].当代语言学,2002(2):119-127.
王文斌.概念合成理论研究与应用的回顾与思考[J].外语研究,2004(1):6-12
王文斌.受喻者的主体性及主体自洽[J].外国语,2006(6):34-39.
王文斌.隐喻的认知构建与解读[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
王寅.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
汪应洛.系统科学[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2001.
王正元.概念整合理论及其应用研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2009.
王治河.后现代哲学思潮研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
维斯特法尔.解释学、现象学与宗教哲学[M].郝长樨选编,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005.
维特根斯坦.逻辑哲学论(中英对照)[M].王平复译,张金言译校,北京:九州出版社,2007.
邬姝丽.高校英语专业口译能力评估及其对口译教学的启示[J].中国翻译,2010(4):37-39.
徐海铭、柴明炯.汉英交替传译活动中译员笔记困难及其原因的实证研究--以国际会
议职业受训译员和非职业译员为例[J].外语学刊,2008(1):136-145.
许明.口译认知过程中“deverbalization”的认知诠释[J].中国翻译,2010(3):5-11.
徐盛桓.理论语用学研究中的假说——研海一楫之四[J].外语与外语教学,2002(6):1-5.
曾文雄.口译的语用流利性[J].中国科技翻译,2002(4):22-24.
曾驭然.企业家社会关系对创新和绩效的影响——以珠江三角制造企业为例[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006.
张辉.熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究[M].北京:军事谊文出版社,2003.
张辉、范瑞萍.形名组合的意义建构:概念整合和物性结构的杂合分析模式[J].外国语,2008(4):38-49.
张世英.哲学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
张威.口译与记忆:历史、现状、未来[J].外语研究,2006(6):66-70.
张威、王克非.口译与工作记忆研究[J].外语与外语教学,2007(1):43-47.
赵军峰、刘洪泉.论口译中的语体识别与对等转换[J].中国科技翻译,1997(3):35-38.
赵彦春.关联理论与翻译的本质——对翻译缺省问题的关联论解释[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(3):117-121.
钟述孔.实用口译手册[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
仲伟合、王斌华.口译研究的“名”与“实”——口译研究的学科理论构建之一[J].中国翻译,2010(5):7-12.
仲伟合、王斌华.口译研究方法论——口译研究的学科理论构建之二[J].中国翻译,2010(6):18-23.
9本章对于认知负荷模型的介绍主要参见Gile(1995)和Gile1997/2002。
10本章关于同声传译认知语用口译模型的介绍主要出自Setton(1999)的专著Simultaneous Interpretation:ACognitive–pragmatic Approach.
17刘宓庆先生在其专著《口笔译理论研究》(2006)中反复强调了口译的这一基本特征,并从语言游戏的视角对口译活动所涉及的语境因素进行了哲学阐释。
18参照PaulThagard在An Introduction to Cognitive Science(《认知科学导论》)中关于问题求解程序的阐述。
21 Dirven把认知语言学言研究划分为(1)以格式塔心理学为基础的研究方向,主要研究格式塔的基本概念和理论在语法中的应用和描写。(2)以现象学为基础的研究方向,主要研究体验性、概念隐喻和转喻、原型理论等。(3)认知语篇的研究方向,主要有心智空间和概念整合理论。(4)认知社会语言学方向,主要研究词汇语义的变异和文化模式等。(5)比喻语言加工的心理语言学和语言习得研究方向。引自张辉2007。
26为解释意义构建模型如何得以压制,以实现最大解释效度,Fauconnier&Turner(1998a)提出6条优化原则(optimalityprinciples),Fauconnier&Turner(2002)将其称为支配原则(governingprinciples)。Turner(2007)在此基础上提出了9条支配原则。汪少华(2002)、苏晓军、张爱玲(2002)、张辉(2003:161-162)、余渭深(2004:555)、王勤玲(2005)和王文斌(2007:110-112)曾对概念整合的优化原则做过介绍。
29摘自沈家煊教授于2005年4月为上海外语教育出版社出版的认知语言学丛书所作总序。
38有关此例分析及其详细情况参照本论文作者发表在《中国科技翻译》2010年4期的文章“谈古训汉英口译的言效契合原则”。
39引自上海外语教育出版社出版的《中国学生英语语调模式研究》(2008:35),作者是陈桦。
40即达到Shlesinger(1998:3)和Gile(1994所提出的口译现场生态效度要求(requirementsofecologicalvalidity)。参见戴炜栋、徐海铭(2007)。
41信息和语言的量化标准参照蔡小红在《口译评估》(2007)中制定的相关评估标准,并根据具体情况进行局部修正。
45引自顾凯平等(2008)编著的《系统科学与工程导论》的编者前言。
46据勒代雷(M.Lederer)教授于发表在《中国翻译》(刘和平译,2010年第3期)“翻译研究方法”一文记载,Ladmiral是唯一作为人文学者谈及翻译科学研究的学者。文中引文出自:Ladmiral, Jean-René. Approaches entheories de la traduction [A]. InAwaiss, Henri,Hardane & Jarjour (eds.). Traduction: Appracheset Theories, Beyrouth,Sources[C].pp.337-47.cibles,UniversiteStJoseph,1999.
Anderson, R. B. W. Perspectives on the role of the interpreter [A]. In F. P?chhacker & M.Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. pp.209-217. London and NewYork:Routledge,1976/2002.
Austin,J.L.HowtoDoThingswithWords?[M].Oxford:TheClarendonPress,1962.
Bache, C. Constraining conceptual integration theory: level of blending and disintegration[J].JournalofPragmatics37:1615-1635,2005.
Bartlett,F.Remembering[M].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1932.
Bateson,G.MindandNature:ANecessaryUnity[M].NewYork:BantamDoubleday,1988.
Berk-Seligson. S. The impact of politeness in witness testimony: the influence of the courtinterpreter [A]. In F. P?chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting StudiesReader [C].pp.280-292.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1988/2002.
Bernard, H. R. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and QuantitativeApproaches [M].(2ndedition)ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications,1994.
Bertalanffy,L.V.Thetheoryofopensystemsinphysicsandbiology[A].InF.E.Emery(ed.).SystemsThinking[C].pp.70-85.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1950.
Boyatzis, R. E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and CodeDevelopment [M].(2ndedition)ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications,1998.
Brandt, P. Mental Spaces and Cognitive Semantics: A Critical Comment [J]. Journal ofPragmatics 37:1578-1594,2005a.
Brandt, L. & P. A. Brandt. Making sense of a blend: A cognitive semiotic approach tometaphor [J]. Ruiz de Mendoza (ed.). Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3,Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,2005b.
Chernov, G. V. Message redundancy and message anticipation in simultaneousinterpretation [A]. In S. Lamber & B. Moser-Mercer (eds.). Bridging the Gap:Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation [C].pp.139-153.Amsterdam andPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,1994.
Chernov, G. V. Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneousinterpretation [A]. in F. P?chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting StudiesReader [C].pp.99-109.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1979/2002.
Chomsky,N.SyntacticStructures[M].TheHague:Mouton,1957.
Clark, E. & H. Clark. Psychology and Language [M]. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich,1977.
Coffey, A. & P. Atkinson. Making Sense of Qualitative Data [M]. Thousand Oaks, CA:SagePublications,1996.
Coulson,S.Themenendezbrothersvirus:analogicalmappinginblendedspaces[A].inA.Goldberg(ed.).ConceptualStructure,Discourse,andLanguage[C].pp.67-81.PaloAlto,CA:CSLIPublications,1996.
Coulson, S. Semantic Leaps: Frame Shifting and Conceptual Blending in MeaningConstruction [M].Beijing:BeijingWorldPublishingCorporation,2001.
Coulson,S.&T.Oakley.Blendingandcodedmeaning:literalandfigurativemeaningincognitivesemantics[J].JournalofPragmatics37:1510-1536,2005.
Croft, W. & D. A. Cruise. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2004.
Cronin, M. The empire talks back: orality, heteronomyand the cultural turn in interpretingstudies [A]. In F. P?chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader[C].pp.387-397.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2002.
Davis,S.Perlocutions[A].InJ.R.Searle,F.Keifer&M.Bierwisch(eds.).SpeechActTheory and Pragmatics [C].pp.37-55.Dordrecht:Reidel,1980.
Dijk,T.V.Macrostructure[M].Hillsdale,N.J.:Erlbaum,1980.
Evans,V & M. Green. Cognitive Introduction: an Introduction [M].Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversityPress,2006.
Fabbro, F. & L. Gran. Neurological and neuropsychological aspects of polyglossia andsimultaneous interpretation [A]. In S. Lamber & B.Moser-Mercer (eds.). Bridging theGap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation [C]. pp.273-317.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,1994.
Fauconnier, G. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language[M].Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.(2nded.,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress),1985/1994.
Fauconnier, G. Mappings in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1997.
Fauconnier, G. Mental spaces [A].In D.Geeraerts & H.Cuyckens (eds.). The OxfordHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. pp.355-376. New York: Oxford UniversityPress,2007.
Fauconnier, G. & E. Sweetser. Spaces, Worlds and Grammar [M]. Chicago: University ofChicagoPress,1996.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. Blending as central process of grammar [A]. In A. Goldberg(ed.).Conceptual Structure,DiscourseandLanguage[C].pp.113-129.Stanford: CSLIPublications,1996.
Fauconnier,G.&M.Turner.ConceptualIntegrationNetworks[J].CognitiveScience,1998a,(22/2):133-87.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. Principles of conceptual integration [A]. In Jean-PierreKoenig(ed.). Discourse & Cognition[C].pp.269-283.Stanford: CSLI Publications,1998b.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’sHidden Complexities [M].NewYork:BasicBooks,2002.
Fellus,O.Self-CorrectionsinSimultaneousInterpretationintheLanguagePairHebrewand English[D].BarIlanUniversity,TheDepartmentofTranslationand InterpretingStudies,2005.
Fillmore, C. Frames and the semantics of understanding [J]. Quaderni di Semantica V1-2:222-254,1985.
Gerver, D. Apsychological approach to simultaneous interpretation [J]. Meta: Journal desTraducteurs/Translators’Journal 20/2:119-128, 1975.
Gerver, D. Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: a review and a model [A]. InR.W.Brislin(ed.).Translation:ApplicationsandResearch[C].pp.165-207.NewYork:GardnerPress,1976.
Gile, D. Openingup in interpreting studies [A]. In M.Snell-Horbyet al. (eds.). TranslationStudies [C]. pp.149-158.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,1994.
Gile,D.BasicConceptsandModelsforInterpretersandTranslatorTraining[M].AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,1995.
Gile,D.Selectingatopic forPhDresearchininterpreting[A].inD.Gileet al.(eds.)GettingStarted in Interpreting Research[C].pp.1-22.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,2001.
Gile,D.Conferenceinterpretingas acognitivemanagementproblem[A].InF.P?chhacker& M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. pp.162-177.London andNewYork:Routledge,1997/2002.
Goffman, E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience [M]. London:HarperandRow,1974.
Goldberg, A. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M].Beijing:BeijingUniversityPress,1995/2007.
Hatim, B. & I. Mason. Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguageEducationPress,1990/2001.
Herbert, J. The Interpreter’s Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter [M].Geneva:Georg,1952.
Holmes, J. S. The name and nature of translation studies [A]. In L.Venuti (ed.). TheTranslation Studies Reader [C].pp.172-185.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1988/2000.
Horn, L. Presupposition and implication [A]. In S. Lappin (ed.). The Handbook ofContemporary Semantic Theory [C].Oxford:Blackwell,1996.
Hutchins, E. Material anchors for conceptual blends[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1555-1577,2005.
Ingram,R.M. Simultaneous interpretationofsign languages: semioticand psycholinguisticperspectives[J].Multilingua4(2):91-102,1985.
Isham,W.P.Memoryforsentenceformaftersimultaneousinterpretation:evidencebothforandagainstdéverbalization[A].InS.LamberandB.Moser-Mercer(eds.).Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation [C].pp.191-211.AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,1994:.
Jones,R.ConferenceInterpretingExplained[M].Shanghai:ShanghaiForeignLanguageEducationPress,1998/2008.
Kirchhoff, H. Simultaneous interpreting: interdependence of variables in the interpretingprocess, interpreting models and interpreting strategies [A]. In F. P?chhacker & M.Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C].pp.110-119. London and NewYork:Routledge,1976/2002.
Kramer,K.P.MartinBuber’sIandThou:PracticingLivingDialogue[M].Paramus.NJ:PaulistPress,2004.
Kurz, I. Conference interpretation: expectations of different user groups [A]. InF.P(o|¨)chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader[C]. pp.314-324.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1993/2002.
Lakoff, G. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind [M].Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress,1987.
Lakoff, G & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress,1980.
Lakoff,G.&M.Johnson.PhilosophyintheFlesh--TheEmbodiedMindandItsChallenge to WesternThought [M].NewYork:Basics,1999.
Lambert,S.Humaninformationprocessingandcognitiveapproachtothetraining of simultaneous interpreters [A]. In D.L.Hammond (ed.). Languages atCrossroads: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the American TranslationAssociation [C].pp.379–387.Medford,NJ:LearnedInformation,1988.
Langacker,R.W.Concept,ImageandSymbol:TheCognitiveBasisofGrammar[M].(2ndedition)Berlin:MoutondeGruyter,2002.
Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vols I, II[M]. Beijing: BeijingUniversityPress,1987,1991/2004.
Lederer, M. Simultaneous interpretation: units of meaning and other features[A]. In F.P(o|¨)chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C].pp.130-140.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1978/2002.
Leech,G.PrinciplesofPragmatics[M].London:Longman,1983.
Levelt,W.Speaking:fromIntentiontoArticulation[M].Cambridge,Mass:MIT,1989.
Lonsdale, D. Modeling cognition in SI: methodological issues [J]. Interpreting 2 (1/2):91-117,1997.
Martinich,A. P. The Philosophy of Language [C].pp.459-463. London: Oxford UniversityPress,1985/2001.
Mendoza,D.R.AnnualReviewofCognitiveLinguistics[C].pp.256-63.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,Vol.3,2006.
Minsky, M. A. Framework of representing knowledge [A]. In P.H. Winston (ed.). ThePsychology of Computer Vision [C]. pp.211-277. New York: McGraw-Hill CognitiveLinguistics,OxfordUniversityPress,1975/2007.
Moser, B. Simultaneous interpretation: a hypothetical model and its practical application[A]. In D. Gerver and H.W. Sainaiko (eds.). Language Interpreting andCommunication. Proceedings of the NATO Symposium[C].pp.353-368.Venice, NewYorkandLondon:PlenumPress.1978.
Paradis, M. Toward a neurolinguistics theory of simultaneous translation: the framework[J].InternationalJournalofPsycholinguistics(9/3):319-335,1994.P(o|¨)chhacker, F. Working within a theoretical framework [A]. In D. Gile (ed.). GettingStarted in Interpreting Studies [C]. pp.199-220. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins,2001.
P(o|¨)chhacker, F. & M. Shlesinger. The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. London and NewYork:Routledge,2002.
P(o|¨)chhacker,F.IntroducingInterpretingStudies[M].NewYork:Routledge,2004.Renkema, J. Introduction to Discourse Studies [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language TeachingandResearchPress.2004/2009
Robson, C. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner--Researchers [M].OxfordandCambridge:BlackwellPublishersLtd.,1993.
Saeed,J.Semantics[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1997.
Salevsky,H.Thedistinctivenatureofinterpretingstudies[J].Target2:149-167,1993.
Samovar, L. A., R. E. Porter & L.A.Stefani. Communication Between Cultures [M].Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,2000.
Schank, R. C. & R. P. Abelson. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry intoHuman Knowledge Structures [M].Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum,1977.
Schjoldager, A. An exploratory study of translational norms in simultaneous interpreting:methodological reflections [A]. In F. P(o|¨)chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). TheInterpreting Studies Reader [C]. pp. 303-311.London and New York: Routledge,1995/2002.
Seleskovitch, D. Languageand cognition[A]. In D.Gerver&W.Sinaiko(eds.).LanguageInterpretation and Communication, Proceedings of the NATO Symposium [C].pp.336-339.Venice,NewYorkandLondon:PlenumPress,1977/1978.
Seleskovitch,D.InterpretingforInternationalConferences:Problemsoflanguageand Communication [M].S.Dailey&E.N.McMillan(tr.).Washington,D.C:PenandBooth,1978/1998.
Seleskovitch, D. Language and memory: a study of note-taking in consecutiveinterpreting[A]. In F. P(o|¨)chhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting StudiesReader[C].pp.121-129.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1975/2002.
Seleskovitch, D. & M. Lederer. A Systematic Approach to Teaching Interpretation [M]. J.Harmer (tr.). Luxembourg: European Communities & Paris: Didier Erudition, TheRegistryofInterpretersfortheDeaf,1989/1995.
Setton, R. Meaning assembly in simultaneous interpretation [A]. In F. P(o|¨)chhacker & M.Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. pp.178-202.London and NewYork:Routledge,1998/2002.
Setton,R. SimultaneousInterpretation:ACognitive–pragmaticApproach [M].AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:JohnBenjamins,1999.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. Representation and relevance [A]. In R. M. Kempson (ed.).Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality [C].pp.133-153.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988.
Sperber, D. &D. Wilson. Relevance: CommunicationandCognition [M].Beijing: ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,1986/2001.
Stenzl, G. Simultaneous Interpretation: Ground Towards a Comprehensive Model [D].BirkbeckCollege,UniversityofLondon,1983.
Taylor, J. R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,2001.
Thagard,P.Mind:IntroductiontoCognitiveScience[M].Cambridge.Mass:MITPress,2005.
Tomasello,M.TheCulturalOriginsofHumanCognition[M].Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1999.
Turner, M. Conceptual integration [A].In D.Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.). The OxfordHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. pp.383-391. New York: Oxford UniversityPress,2007.
Ungerer,F.&H.J.Schmid.AnIntroductiontoCognitiveLinguistics[M].Beijing: ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,2001.
Verhagen, A. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax and Cognition [M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005.
Vermeer,H.J.Skoposandcommissionintranslationalaction[A].InL.Venuti(ed.).The Translation Studies Reader [C]. pp. 221-232.London and New York: Routledge,1989/2000.
Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign LanguageEducationPress,1999/2008.
Wadensjo, C. The double role of a dialogue interpreter [A]. In F. P?chhacker & M.Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. pp.354-371. London and NewYork:Routledge,1993/2002.
Wierzbicka,A.TheSemanticsofGrammar[M].Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,1988.
Wilson, R. & F.C. Keil. The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences [M]. Shanghai:ShanghaiForeignLanguageEducationPress,2000.
Wittgenstein,L.PhilosophicalInvestigations[M].TheEnglishTextoftheThirdEdition,G.E.M.Anscombe(tr.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHallInc.,1958.
艾布拉姆斯.欧美文学术语词典[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1990.
鲍刚.口译程序中的语义问题[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,1998(4):103-110.
鲍刚.口译程序中的“思维理解”[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,1999(1):1-12.
鲍刚.口译理论概述[M].北京:中国对外翻译公司,2005.
鲍晓英.帮助学生实现口译“信”的标准——记忆心理学在口译教学中的应用[J].外语界,2005(3):37-42.
蔡小红.交替传译过程及能力发展——中国法语译员和学生的交替传译活动实证研究[J].现代外语,2001(3):276-284.
蔡小红.口译研究新探——新方法、新观念、新趋势[M].香港:开益出版社,2002.
蔡小红.口译评估[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2007.
陈嘉映.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
谌莉文.口译思维理解中的前知识运作[J].外语电化教学,2010a(4):37-41.
谌莉文.谈古训汉英口译的言效契合原则[J].中国科技翻译,2010b(6):19-22.
谌莉文、梅德明.意义阐释与口译思维运作的主体间性:语言游戏视角[J].外语与外语教学,2010(6):71-74.
谌莉文、王文斌.论口译双重语境的认知构建:在场概念与不在场概念[J].中国翻译,2010(6):24-28.
程琪龙.概念框架和认知[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
戴炜栋、徐海铭.汉英交替传译过程中译员笔记特征实证研究——以职业受训译员和
非职业译员为例[J].外语教学与研究,2007(2):136-143.
冯之林.思维语[J].现代外语,1997(2):8-12.
高彬.猜测与反驳——同声传译认知理论研究[D].上海外国语大学博士论文,2008.
顾凯平等.系统科学与工程导论[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2008.
桂诗春.应用语言学思想:缘起、变化和发展[J].外语教学与研究,2010(3): 163-169.
何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
何自然、冉永平.语用与认知:关联理论研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
黑玉琴.从关联理论看口译过程中的最佳意义选择[J].外语教学,2003(6):93-96.
胡庚申.怎样学习当好译员[M].合肥:中国科技大学出版社,1993.
胡开宝、陶庆.汉英会议口译语料库的创建与应用研究[J].中国翻译,2010(5):49-56.
胡隆.教育技术研究方法导论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
加达默尔.真理与方法[M].洪汉鼎译,上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
杰克逊.系统思考[M].高飞、李萌译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
金立鑫.语言研究方法导论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
科列索夫.语言与心智[M].杨明天译,上海:上海三联书店,2006.
勒代雷.释意学派口笔译理论[M].刘和平译,北京:中国对外翻译公司,2001.
勒代雷.论翻译学研究方法[J].刘和平译,中国翻译,2010(2):11-18.
雷天放、陈菁.口译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006
李锦、廖开洪.浅析语境在口译中的适应性[J].语言与翻译,2002(4):45-47.
李越然.论口译的社会功能——口译理论基础初探[J].中国翻译,1999(3):7-11.
廖开洪.浅析即席口译过程中理解的障碍[J].中国翻译,1997(4):15-18.
刘爱伦等.思维心理学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2002.
刘和平.口译技巧——思维科学与口译推理教学法[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
刘和平.口译理论与教学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
刘件福.从图式理论看背景知识在口译中的作用[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001(6):16-21.
刘宓庆.口笔译理论研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译公司,2006.
刘绍龙.论双语翻译的认知心理研究——对“翻译过程模式”的反思和修正[J].中国翻译,2007(1):11-16.
刘绍龙.口译“元交际”功能的认知心理学研究[J].外语与外语教学,2008(1):44-47.
刘正光.Fauconnier的概念整合理论阐释与质疑[J].外语与外语教学,2002(10):8-12.
陆国强.英汉概念结构对比[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
卢植.认知与语言:认知语言学引论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
麦金.维特根斯坦与哲学研究[M].李国山译,桂林:广西师范大学出版,2007.
梅德明.中级口译教程(第二版)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
梅德明.高级口译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
梅德明.中级口译教程(第三版)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
梅德明、谌莉文.口译活动的语言游戏参与规则[M].外语教学,2011(2):81-85.
莫爱屏.交传与明示:推理交际——口译的理性思考[J].语言与翻译,2003(2):43-47.
诺德.译有所为:功能翻译理论阐释[M].张美芳、王克非主译,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005.
潘文国.危机下的中文[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,2008.
秦晓晴.外语教学中的定量数据分析[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2010.
束定芳.认知语义学[M].上海:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
苏晓军、张爱玲.概念整合理论的认知力[J].外国语,2001(3):31-36.
唐芳.口译实证研究在中国——一项基于口译实验性研究论文的文献计量研究[J].外语界,2010(2):39-45.
王斌.概念整合与翻译[J].中国翻译,2001(3):17-20.
王斌.隐喻系统的整合翻译[J].中国翻译,2002(2):24-28.
王斌.翻译与概念整合[M].上海:东华大学出版社,2004.
汪少华.合成空间理论对隐喻的阐释力[J].外国语,2001(3):37-43.
汪少华.概念合成与隐喻的实时意义构建[J].当代语言学,2002(2):119-127.
王文斌.概念合成理论研究与应用的回顾与思考[J].外语研究,2004(1):6-12
王文斌.受喻者的主体性及主体自洽[J].外国语,2006(6):34-39.
王文斌.隐喻的认知构建与解读[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
王寅.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
汪应洛.系统科学[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2001.
王正元.概念整合理论及其应用研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2009.
王治河.后现代哲学思潮研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
维斯特法尔.解释学、现象学与宗教哲学[M].郝长樨选编,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005.
维特根斯坦.逻辑哲学论(中英对照)[M].王平复译,张金言译校,北京:九州出版社,2007.
邬姝丽.高校英语专业口译能力评估及其对口译教学的启示[J].中国翻译,2010(4):37-39.
徐海铭、柴明炯.汉英交替传译活动中译员笔记困难及其原因的实证研究--以国际会
议职业受训译员和非职业译员为例[J].外语学刊,2008(1):136-145.
许明.口译认知过程中“deverbalization”的认知诠释[J].中国翻译,2010(3):5-11.
徐盛桓.理论语用学研究中的假说——研海一楫之四[J].外语与外语教学,2002(6):1-5.
曾文雄.口译的语用流利性[J].中国科技翻译,2002(4):22-24.
曾驭然.企业家社会关系对创新和绩效的影响——以珠江三角制造企业为例[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006.
张辉.熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究[M].北京:军事谊文出版社,2003.
张辉、范瑞萍.形名组合的意义建构:概念整合和物性结构的杂合分析模式[J].外国语,2008(4):38-49.
张世英.哲学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
张威.口译与记忆:历史、现状、未来[J].外语研究,2006(6):66-70.
张威、王克非.口译与工作记忆研究[J].外语与外语教学,2007(1):43-47.
赵军峰、刘洪泉.论口译中的语体识别与对等转换[J].中国科技翻译,1997(3):35-38.
赵彦春.关联理论与翻译的本质——对翻译缺省问题的关联论解释[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(3):117-121.
钟述孔.实用口译手册[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
仲伟合、王斌华.口译研究的“名”与“实”——口译研究的学科理论构建之一[J].中国翻译,2010(5):7-12.
仲伟合、王斌华.口译研究方法论——口译研究的学科理论构建之二[J].中国翻译,2010(6):18-23.